Spaz

In the Jesus Messiah of the OT thread there was some discussion about the plural references to god in genesis and I was interested in discussing this but thought that it would throw the thread off and deserved its own thread.

I'm of the opinion that the plural references to god are there because the original myths were from cultures with multiple gods. There were interpretations of it that it refers to the trinity and others that it refers to the angels.

To start it off I think that Ill post my opinion of referring to the angels. I think that it can't be referring to the angels because of this verse:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Gen 3:22

I think that this context would mean that the "us" is more of an equal to god, which the angels are not. I'm sure that this can be reconciled, but this is just a starting point for the discussion, so discuss away.

CJD

I thought I cleared this up once and for all!?

Seriously, though, this is what I wrote earlier on the subject:

Spaz makes reference to Genesis 3:22, and how the 1st person plural pronoun "us" makes little sense there if referring to the heavenly court (or angels). The assumption yet to be proven by Spaz is that "the 'us' is more of an equal to god." Why do you think this? In Genesis 3:5, the word "knowing" is most likely a countable plural. In other words, it probably should read, " . . . you will be like divine beings, knowers of good and evil." Hence Genesis 3:22, "They have beome like one of us, knowers of good and evil." This is hardly something particular to God alone, as other heavenly beings would also know this "good-and-evil." Note that this "good-and-evil" should be taken as an all-encompassing knowledge of morality. That is, the capacity to create a system of ethics and make moral judgments. The problem came when the couple seized it independently from their maker, etc., etc. Any more would be off-topic.

Regards,

CJD

Spaz

I was just making something up randomly . In Genesis before this it doesn't talk of anything really in heaven, especially not specifically angels, just "the host of them" referring to the masses in heaven and masses on earth. So my opinion is just that the whole angel thing was stuck to it after angels were thought up, as genesis seems to be a lot of different stories stuck into one book rather than it being written as a whole. Right after I wrote that I knew it didn't make sense and could be taken either way, I just took it that way just to say something to start the discussion rather than nothing, heh. I saw the posts in that thread and I was just wondering what others had read/thought about the whole thing and that's why I made the thread.

Evangelion

• The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).
  
  Davidson, A. B., (1963), Hastings Dictionary of the Bible.

• I do not find the difficulties raised against the view that God was consulting the angels compelling... When angels appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (Gen. 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb in v. 27 does in fact suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind.
  
  ‘Let us create man’ should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4, 7 puts it: ‘When I laid the foundation of the earth all the Sons of God shouted for joy’ (cp. Luke 2:13-14).”
  
  Wenham, Gordon J. (1987), Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis.

• The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward.
  
  Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
  
  Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. Westermann (Genesis 1-11, 145) argues for a plural of "deliberation" here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory.
  
  In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court.
  
  In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God's messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as "gods/divine beings." See the note on the word "evil" in 3:5.)
  
  If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).
  
  Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine "image" in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
  
  Footnote in the New English Translation. (Online Edition.)

Doctor X

Many different names for "god" exist in the OT texts. Genesis has the distinction of using a plural Elohim="gods" as well as the verb-god YHWH. Long story short, this has been reviewed in the Documentary Hypothesis--see wonderful Friedman reference as a great introduction to "J," "E," and "P" authorship--of multiple authorship.

"There is no 'royal we' in Biblical Hebrew," to quote a mentor. When dealing with the Elohim one deals with a plurality.

A plurality of what?

To requote the mentor, "of course there is no tradition of monotheism in the Old Testament!"--he lost half his class with that statement. Anyways, what he meant was what was important was not that you had ONE GOD but that YOUR GOD is BETTER than others.

The OT preserves--and the writers preserved--stories that contained polytheism to some degree. Indeed--I would have to look for it--there is a part where the "Wandering Band of Invading Jews"--new CD available--attack a town, the king sacrifices to Chemosh, and Chemosh squishes them. Huh?

This is part of the "locative" tradition--my town, my gods. Gods had boundaries.

[ZZZZzzzZZZZzzzzz--Ed.]

Anyways, did the writers worship many gods? Did they think that El and his various apelations, YHWH, the Elohim represent a part of a pantheon that, over time, has been lost?

Good question. I do not have the answer. To make a very long story short, I think that what happened is over time, with the blending and syncretism that happens as people mixed--in some cases got deported by invaders!--that the "local" conception of gods became more universal--gods blended. I think people began to consider a more "universal" god--much like El becomes more "amorphous" or higher than other gods.

Anyways, this process would allow the acceptance of other gods as powers or manifestations. People can reinterpret a polytheistic story in such a way.

--J.D.

References:

Friedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible?

Evangelion

BTW, the Book of Jubilees supports the "angel" interpretation.

Marduk

hmmmmm, could it be because someone read this old creation story from Babylon?
Tablet six of the Enumma Elish aka the six tablets of creation.

Marduk assembled the great gods,
Gave (them) instructions pleasantly, gave orders.
The gods paid attention to what he said.
The king addressed his words to the Anunnaki,
Your election of me shall be firm and foremost.
I shall declare the laws, the edicts within my power.
Whosoever started the war,
And incited Tiamat, and gathered an army,
Let the one who started the war be given up to me,
And he shall bear the penalty for his crime, that you may dwell in peace.'
The Igigi, the great gods, answered him,
Their lord Lugal-dimmer-ankia, counsellor of the gods,
It was Qingu who started the war,
He who incited Tiamat and gathered an army!'
They bound him and held him in front of Ea,
Imposed the penalty on him and cut off his blood.
He created mankind from his blood,
Imposed the toil of the gods (on man) and released the gods from it.
When Ea the wise had created mankind,
Had imposed the toil of the gods on them -
That deed is impossible to describe,
For Nudimmud performed it with the miracles of Marduk -
Then Marduk the king divided the gods,
The Anunnaki, all of them, above and below.
He assigned his decrees to Anu to guard,
Established three hundred as a guard in the sky;
Did the same again when he designed the conventions of earth,
And made the six hundred dwell in both heaven and earth


here is the council of the heavenly court, the 'we' or 'us'.

CJD

Just a few thoughts:

Doctor X wrote: "Anyways, what he meant was what was important was not that you had ONE GOD but that YOUR GOD is BETTER than others."

This is profoundly true, and must be grasped especially by those who take the Scriptures as authoritative. That is why, for example, the creation story in Genesis is a polemic against the Enuma Elish mentioned above (and other circulating stories like the Adapa myth). In like manner, the flood account in Genesis serves to counter the Sumerian flood story, etc. We Christians should recognize this and see that our story, particularly that of Genesis 1–11, is in fact a polemic directed against ancient Near Eastern myths. In other words, as Doctor X wrote, our God is indeed better than all the others. Why do Christians think this undermines the faith? Call this base, call it earthy, call it simplistic, but don't call it sophisticated, because it's not, at least not according to what society defines as "sophisticated" (cf. proverbial wisdom).

To answer Doc. X's last question: "Did they think that El and his various apelations, YHWH, the Elohim represent a part of a pantheon that, over time, has been lost?"

I think we can safely say that from at least 1400 BC the answer is no (at which time portions of the text were put down in writing), as the portrayal of Israel's God is anything but a pantheon. This makes sense, after all, given that whoring oneself out to worship anything else other than YHWH is the crime of all crimes in the Tanak. Finally, the variations in God's names are meaningful, to be sure. But they do not designate different gods so much as they serve to emphasize different aspects of the same God. For example, whether there were several authors, or one major author, "Elohim" was used to refer to the one God's universality over all the nations, while YHWH was used when the one God's covenantal relationship with Israel was in view. Can we say much more than that?

Regards,

CJD

Tristan Scott

Perhaps, but even as late as the 600 BCE El Shaddai (God of the Mountain) is used in Genesis, and remains until King James which could, IMO, intimate the existence of other gods. Otherwise, why the distinction?

CJD

Tristan Scott wrote: "Perhaps, but even as late as the 600 BCE El Shaddai (God of the Mountain) is used in Genesis, and remains until King James which could, IMO, intimate the existence of other gods."

This is a possible only if the context were not so clear when El Shaddai is introduced. Genesis 17:1 reads: "Abram was 99 years old when the [covenant Lord] YHWH appeared to Abram. And he said to him, "I am [God Almighty] El Shaddai. Walk before my presence and be blameless."

As to the actual meaning of el sadday, I think the meaning is lost on us. Some think it refers to God's universal dominion. I've seen two viable options: 1) "The Powerful, Strong One" (hence, "Almighty") from the root sdd; and 2) "The One Who Suffices" from se and day. Whatever the case, if this subtley implies the writer's conviction that other gods were included in a Hebrew pantheon, then it is subtle indeed. The context does not really allow for it; but what the context does allow for is the notion that Shaddai evokes the idea that God is able to make the barren fertile and to fulfill his promises (so Wenham, Genesis 16–50). In other words, I am not quite sure how it could intimate a plurality of gods.

"Otherwise, why the distinction?"

I mentioned this already in the above post: "Finally, the variations in God's names are meaningful, to be sure. But they do not designate different gods so much as they serve to emphasize different aspects of the same God. For example, whether there were several authors, or one major author, "Elohim" was used to refer to the one God's universality over all the nations, while YHWH was used when the one God's covenantal relationship with Israel was in view." Your suggestion, Tristan, seems to go beyond the textual evidence.

Regards,

CJD